The world is a dynamic place that is ever changing with the break of every dawn. Indeed, everything moves so fast that it becomes tedious to keep up with the flow of events. Also, there are so many contentious issues, some of which have existed since time immemorial while others that spring up every morning to add to the pool of controversies. One of the factors that bring about the debatable issues in the society is the issue of diversity. With so many cultures, religions, cities, ethnic groups, and countries, a mishmash of opinions is created causing great differences between people. Apparently, there are some issues that are stratified under absolutism, meaning that they only have one universal explanation that suffices all quandaries that may arise. Conversely, a bigger percentage of issues fall under relativism, meaning that the explanation to their occurrences differs from one individual to the other based on culture, gender, religion, or nationality. For instance, a moral issue that falls under relativism, as discussed in this paper, is the contentious topic on euthanasia. Euthanasia, which is the deliberate killing of a patient to alleviate them from pain or suffering, brings about strife because some support while others oppose the practice completely. Undoubtedly, the theory of relativism applies in such a moral issue since both parties can be equally correct or incorrect depending on their standpoint, hereby rendering relativism powerless against the issue. This paper seeks to delineate the intrinsic frailty of relativism as an ethical theory by analyzing the issue of euthanasia. Due to the theory’s inability to bring about a plausible solution, an argument will be presented to elaborate that mercy killing is a better position due to the incurability of some diseases.
Background Overview of Euthanasia
Having been derived from two Greek words ‘eu’ and ‘thanatos’ which mean good and death respectively, euthanasia has since its inception been considered a merciful form of death administered to patients to spare them relentless torment brought about by maladies (Strinic). Historically, euthanasia can be traced vividly back to the 14th Century where it was already in application, yet in a great tug of war because of its debatable nature. A fine line exists between euthanasia and physician assisted suicide (PAD) in that, euthanasia is death administered painlessly by one person to another in a bid to ease their unrelenting pain. In contrast, assisted suicide involves two parties, both the patient and the physician, where the physician provides the guidance to the patient on how best to terminate their lives (Boudreau). Factually, there are three types of euthanasia namely; voluntary, non-voluntary, and involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia is conducted after the patient has consented, non-voluntary takes place without the consent of the patient, while involuntary is undertaken against the patient’s will (Strinic). The legality of euthanasia differs from one country or state to the other, with some regions viewing euthanasia as a homicidal act while others have separate legal clauses to judge the circumstance for the occurrence of the euthanasia. In fact, only countries like Netherlands fully allow the three types of euthanasia, hence zero litigious proceedings concerning the issue (Boudreau). Statistically, 86% of the population in the U.S. supports euthanasia when the patients in question are terminally ill and or using a life support machine (Boudreau). In general, euthanasia is still a feared issue, majorly obstructed by the sanctity aspect of life.
Strongholds and Weaknesses of Euthanasia
Euthanasia bears both positive and negative consequences depending on the point of view, a patient’s health status, and the agreement between the patient and their physician. First, euthanasia is greatly considered a remedy for pain and suffering especially with regards to a terminal illness. According to (Strinic), euthanasia is more like an insurance policies that indemnifies patients from being subjected to painful endings of their lives, hereby providing peaceful a closure of life. Second, euthanasia is considered more humane since it gives dignity to patient with an irremidiable disease while saving the loved ones from witnessing the pain involved in watching their patient tossing and turning in anguish. In fact, (Strinic) explains that legalizing euthanasia gives an individual the freedom and autonomy to choose whether to die peacefully or to persevere the unremitting pain of the sickness.
Contrarily, euthanasia is greatly opposed primarily due to the sacredness of life with the major justification being that no one gives life and therefore no has the right to take life away regardless of the circumstances at hand. For starters, euthanasia renders the physicians oath obsolete because while their major purpose is save and protect lives, euthanasia permits them to do the exact opposite. Again, the other significant factor that discourages the society from embracing euthanasia is because its legalization would immediately encourage people to do the same whether with a good or ulterior motive. As a matter of fact, (Boudreau) argues that healing and euthanizing are immiscible because they produce counterproductive effects on one another, clearly misdefining the purpose of doctors in the lives of patients. In essence, disparate opinions from different headquarters have been formed concerning euthanasia, all in a bid to justify the issue to befit their moral beliefs.
Ethical Relativism
Ethical relativism is one of the theories in relativism that the morality of an action differs from one person to the other. Essentially, whether an action is right or wrong, greatly depends on the individual in question. Like other types of relativism, ethical relativism denounces the existence of one cardinal universal moral code that dictates the outcomes of every other moral principle In lieu, it acknowledges the dissimilarities in the society and how individuals differ from one region due to the diversity created by disparate genders, races, color, age brackets, social class, religion, vocation, or ethnic background. In other words, ethical relativism is like a blank white check that allows anyone to write their opinion concerning a moral issue based on how they feel towards the issue. Indeed, ethical relativism is founded on subjectivity hence the word ‘feel’ since no one can actually prove that the opinion they hold is objectively true since it is impossible to carry out an empirical research on issues of morality.
Unfortunately, ethical relativism provides room for negative criticism due to the autonomy it provides to the society concerning moral issues. One of the most significant criticisms revolves around the fact that the theory offers a moral loophole that predisposes the society to a lot of equivocality. Since ethical relativism cannot objectively give a judicious decision as to what is morally right or wrong, it essentially leaves the matter in the hands of any individual from any social setup, meaning that one moral issue can be executed differently regardless of the repercussions caused by any decision (Shchipunov). For instance, in the case of euthanasia, ethical relativism creates a state of ambiguity as to what is morally right, hence creating a loophole in which an individual with an ulterior homicidal motive can use euthanasia to justify their act of murder. Owing to this weakness, ethical relativism cannot be able to provide a definite bearing and direction to a controversial issue such as euthanasia, hereby portraying a placebo effect since it leaves the question on mercy killing unanswered as it was previously.
Non-Relativistic Argument
In my opinion, the carrying out of mercy killing is at a better position than its complete avoidance. Even though euthanasia has been disputed as morally wrong even in accordance with religious tenets, there are some diseases that only lead the patients to excruciating pain for no apparent reason since they are incurable (Strinic). For instance, if a patient is suffering from the final stage of cancer such that no amount of chemotherapy can suffice to reduce the uncontrollable growth of the carcinogenic cells in their body, then it would be of no use to keep the patient suffering in a bid to postpone the inevitable death. Another epitome befitting this proposition is a situation where a patient has suffered brain damage that has ruined their ability to reason, talk, remember, or control the fluids from their orifices. Evidently, euthanasia would come in handy in such a case for it even frees the loved ones of the patient from psychological and emotional distress.
Conclusion
In summary, the theory of relativism is one that allows different individuals to have personal definitions of what is morally unerring or erroneous. With regards to euthanasia, ethical relativism offers to contradictory opinions, one that allows the process while the other that opposes it. Due to its inability to solve the predicament, a greater argument would be in support of euthanasia since it relieves patients off relentless pain while sparing them the psychological torture of their impending death. Unquestionably, a lot is left unanswered using the theory of relativism and better theories can be employed when weighing matters of substantiality rather than leave things to chance in the hands of different opinion givers.
Works Cited
Boudreau, Donald. "Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: Can You Even Imagine Teaching Medical Students How to End Their Patients' Lives?" The Permanente Journal (2011): 79-84. Web.
Rozuel, Cécile. "Ethical Absolutism versus Ethical Relativism." Encyclopedia of Corporate Social Responsibility, 2013, pp. 1051-1059.
Shchipunov, O.K. "Ethical relativism: philosophical approaches to the study." Contemporary problems of social work, vol. 1, no. 2, 2015, pp. 58-62.
Strinic, Visnja. "Arguments in Support and Against Euthanasia." British Journal of Medicine " Medical Research
(2015): 1-12. Document.
